Sunday, June 28, 2009

These Are Our Leaders?

We're supposed to impound cars to generate revenue stop crime. Someone even wrote a letter about it. Here's the problem:

(from the comments) In-service training requires personnel at the academy to do training. Yet everyone screams that the academy is open. Brust orders academy to detail out ten instructors a day with a sgt to work seat belt missions on the south side. The team must impound cars and write tickets. Not to answer calls and make arrests....

6/26/2009 10:10:00 AM

The reality?

Heard that Brust and Wedster made a traffic stop in 005 the other day, (no pc for the stop other than they didn't like the looks of the driver). The entire entourage of this seat belt mission was in vehicles behind them. One officer was made to search the driver and found two bags a weed. Brust and Wedster wanted the driver locked up for the weed. The officer politely told them that they did not have pc for the arrest and let the driver go.

Arizona v Gant anyone? These are the people that have our backs? One of those people is in charge of the Academy for pete's sake, teaching recruits how to follow the law. And here they are violating a citizen's civil rights in front of the Instructors they're supposed to be leading.

Was that incident given an event number? Were contact cards made? Shouldn't Weis send that to the Fbi civil rights division "just to take a look at"? Just like Weis quoted about Cozzi. "All I did was ask them if they saw this."

I beg to defer on the PC issue. The PC was that this individual was operating a motor vehicle in the public way. Check your caselaw, its perfectly acceptable in court as the basis for a stop. Was the driver able to produce a D/L, if so he should have been released if no citations w/o either a search of his person or auto. I believe the problem arose when the driver was searched. Why did the P.O. go in his pockets? OTOH, could the P.O. (based on his experience, etc.) identify the dope by mearly touching the outside of the offender's clothing? Had I been Wedster, I would have taken this officer off to the side and explained the facts of life to him, i.e., the boss is always right speech. The fact that the P.O. even questioned her under these circumstances should resulting in him being assigned to sit in the lobby of Roseland Hospital for the next 6 months or so. . . Shame

Brust and WedsterBozo and CookieBrust:A clueless fed ,mediocre lawyer and wanna -be overpaid cop and Wedster:a hack 19th ward political flunkie that could'nt find dope in an opium field-did the 19th ward democrapic organization get their cut for your gold star goofy Ruth?and Brust? you're a f---ing idiot clueless bureaucrat. I happened to sit in the last CAR meeting where you slammed some southside districts for their stats.You got some nerve-What the hell do you know about police work FED BOY? Go back to Hoover's crossdressing crusading wanna be cops, chump. You can't criticize ANY POLICE OFFICER because you don't have the knowledge or experience-the biggest dog in the slowest district in the department is TEN TIMES the cop you'll ever be.We don't follow , respect you, or acknowledge your leadership ,Brusty the clown. And that goes double for your best friend J-head.

Well, SCC, Wedster should know what she's doing on our streets! She's been a Cmdr. for all of 3 or 4 months now, and she already has a TRAINING VIDEO out on the Intranet, so she must have a whole lot of knowledge!!

Heard that Brust and Wedster made a traffic stop in 005 the other day, (no pc for the stop other than they didn't like the looks of the driver). The entire entourage of this seat belt mission was in vehicles behind them. One officer was made to search the driver and found two bags a weed. Brust and Wedster wanted the driver locked up for the weed. The officer politely told them that they did not have pc for the arrest and let the driver go.

This sounds like bullshit. What did they do with the weed? Sewer? I doubt it. There would have to be some type of report generated to have an RD for the Inventory. There has to be more to this story cause it just doesn't sound realistic.

Gant does not apply to this case. The driver was stopped, for legitimate reasons, and a "Terry" search of the subject was conducted. A custodial search of the vehicle was NOT performed. If the offender makes a statement that he has narcotics on him, the weed can be recovered and the subject can then be taken into custody. A search of the vehicle after this point can then be conducted because the vehicle will be impounded for narcotics. Anything else then found in the vehicle--guns, drugs--can be lawfully recovered and the driver (or passenger, if appropriate) can be charged.

Scc, I hope this helps you while on patrol. I do not want you provided bad information to the troops.

As related in the story, "didn't like the looks of the driver" doesn't sound like a legit stop, but it's your house on the line. Proceed.

and a "Terry" search of the subject was conducted.

Again, as the story is related to us, this isn't a Terry stop.

A custodial search of the vehicle was NOT performed.

Because the officer who found the weed realized he would be in a world of shit if he went near the car after stopping him for no reason. He's the smartest guy on scene so far.

If the offender makes a statement that he has narcotics on him, the weed can be recovered and the subject can then be taken into custody.

And again, that didn't happen. Have you even read the story? Read it again - you seem to be missing parts of it.

A search of the vehicle after this point can then be conducted because the vehicle will be impounded for narcotics. Anything else then found in the vehicle--guns, drugs--can be lawfully recovered and the driver (or passenger, if appropriate) can be charged.

Agreed - if, and only if, the rest of your fantasy stop was true. But we aren't dealing with your fantasy stop - we're dealing with a narrative provided to us by someone on scene. And each and every step you've related isn't in the original narrative. That's a problem.

Scc, I hope this helps you while on patrol. I do not want you provided bad information to the troops.

And we don't want you providing silly information that will lose people houses, pensions and punitive damages. We based our post on the story given. We didn't make up shit as we went along in an effort to justify a blatant violation of Civil Rights.

Please Please PLEASE invest in some reading comprehension courses and a pair of reading glasses.

The fact that the P.O. even questioned her under these circumstances should resulting in him being assigned to sit in the lobby of Roseland Hospital for the next 6 months or so. . . Shame-----------------------------------Get your head out of your ass moron. Just because a vehicle is on the public way does not allow us to stop them. Case law you say? If you stop a vehicle for no other reason than they were on the public way you are detaining the individual. Unless they violated a city or state ordinance that detention is illegal.

Anything that happens after that will be tossed out of court because the initial stop was without probable cause.

What do you think would have happened in this situation if, when they stopped this car and approached the vehicle, the officer observed the bag of weed sitting on the passenger seat? It's in plain sight, right? Well, without the p.c. for the initial stop; i.e. driver was observed operating his motor vehicle without wearing his seat belt, the arrest would be thrown out. The impounded vehicle would be returned to the owner and the officer in question would probably be facing a civil lawsuit.

But what am I wasting my time for? You are either: 1. A boss, merit to boot, who can't understand that you also have to follow the law, or 2. An inside dog who was or is scared shitless when they have to do their time in the "back to the streets" program.

"I beg to defer on the PC issue. The PC was that this individual was operating a motor vehicle in the public way."--------------------------------------

Huh?? So I can stop anyone I want, anytime I want, when they are operating a motor vehicle in a "public way"? Whenever ANYONE is stopped you need PC or reasonable suspicion. And just driving a car down the street don't cut it. Go back to law school, chief

Not to get in the middle of the dick wagging contest, but if you're going to break out the old "reading comprehension" jab, be 100% you've got it right, counselor. Nowhere in the anonymous commenter's narrative does it say that a VEHICULAR SEARCH took place. I agree, from what's given, the whole incident was a clusterfuck and violative of old boy's civil rights. Not, however, because of the recent Gant ruling. See below if you're interested:

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless VEHICULAR SEARCH incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

Anonymous said...Did Wedster have her blond side kick SS with her who was a district sec in 022 her whole career until Ruthie took her to the academy with her? Talk about the blind leading the blind!!!!

6/28/2009 02:27:00 AMAll SS knew was how to kiss ass and drink with Ruth. The last good secretary in 22 was the oldtimer PH who retired.

Like, who the hell has time to play traffic cop anymore? Shit happens in front of me and a stop may be made, but warnings are the flavor of the day for me. And go to the station to report that accident, pal. Forget about doing any work for this Mayor.

Anonymous said... I wonder if Brust and Wedster through a hissy fit when the officer reminded them that with no pc, the arrest would be thrown out of court. Hell, the stop itself will probably lead to a civil suit.

Did the officer in question get launched from the Academy for doing his job?

6/28/2009 06:51:00 AM

Why is the entire team of officers following the commander and Brust? What was the real purpose of this mission? I cannot understand why a D.S. has time enough to monitor a seat belt mission? Why is Brust and Wedster so concerned about the seat belt missions? Something is wrong here. Cuello, Brust and Wedster are one heck of a leadership team.

Please Please Please somebody save us from these incompetent Gold Stars. When will Da mayor see that this Department is crumbling down to Hell. We can now see that affirmative action was not the answer these illadvised moves have destroyed us. The Minority AND Political Gold Stars think they know everything when they know nothing, because if they did they would hasve passed a test, THIS DEPARTMENT SUCKS

I beg to defer on the PC issue. The PC was that this individual was operating a motor vehicle in the public way. Check your caselaw, its perfectly acceptable in court as the basis for a stop.

6/28/2009 01:16:00 AM

You beg to "defer?" You mean differ. And it's frightening that you think that you have PC just because people are "in" the public way. You need a violation to occur, you jackass. God I hope you're not the police. I'm thinking you might be a fed, though. Or one of those dumb fuck know-it-all half educated morons that we have on the job.

1:16 AM You better check you case law. Operating a vehicle on a public way is only PC for the stop if a violation is noted or there is another reason for the stop like a DUI check point. You can't just stop people. Next, even if the person was just issued a ticket, there is no probable casue to do a search of the person or vehicle unless an arrest was made. Not being there is is hard to know what happended. Maybe a good stop and no license, so an arrest situation. the troubling part is that Wedster and Brust didn't know what to do and didn't take charge of the situation. BUT YOU CAN"T JUST STOP SOMEONE FOR DRIVING WITHOUT A REASON.

Gant does not apply to this case. The driver was stopped, for legitimate reasons, and a "Terry" search of the subject was conducted. A custodial search of the vehicle was NOT performed. If the offender makes a statement that he has narcotics on him, the weed can be recovered and the subject can then be taken into custody. A search of the vehicle after this point can then be conducted because the vehicle will be impounded for narcotics. Anything else then found in the vehicle--guns, drugs--can be lawfully recovered and the driver (or passenger, if appropriate) can be charged.

Scc, I hope this helps you while on patrol. I do not want you provided bad information to the troops.

6/28/2009 06:44:00 AM

Hang on there sloopy... has there been a legal bulletin yet on when we can or cannot search a car without a warrant? Last I heard something was coming out due to the recent supreme court ruling, but have not seen anything yet.... Typical of this dept... one day, in the co book, it has a memo about possibly needing a warrant, then NOTHING comes out....

Anonymous said... Was that incident given an event number? Were contact cards made? Shouldn't Weis send that to the Fbi civil rights division "just to take a look at"? Just like Weis quoted about Cozzi. "All I did was ask them if they saw this."

6/28/2009 12:30:00 AM

More leaders with no clue! You make the rules, but you break the same rules no wonder the fake leadership is useless!

What does Wedster know about being the police, let alone training them... Is she training them how to find sweet jobs to avoid working the streets? That's been her entire career... kissing ass to avoid dealing with the savages, and she's training our recruits? God help us!

The PC was that this individual was operating a motor vehicle in the public way. Check your caselaw, its perfectly acceptable in court as the basis for a stop.

-------

You are 100% wrong.

There is no case that allows for stops of anyone driving. There are cases where police can conduct an indiscriminant roadblock for DUI screenings and other crimes, but the stops cannot target specific individuals.

There is a case that allows police to use stops for TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS as a pretext for other criminal investigations (Whren v. US). But, a driver must violate a traffic law, or do some articulable action creating reasonable suspicion that a crime is, has, or will occur.

With all that nonsense said, I have a big problem with police officers arguing with their idiot bosses about probable cause in front of some POS with weed in his pockets.

I hate the bosses on this job as much as anyone, but I'll be damed if I am going to let some gangbanger POS go just because a boss is too ignorant to articulate why he stopped him in the first place. If the boss can't figure out the Probable Cause, then I will do it for him.

I'm done going out of my way to stop anyone, but I sure as hell am not going to let guilty criminals go if I do stop them.

DUI road side checks, seat belt missions, pedestrian crosswalk scams - all the same...Look black, hispanic [illegal] or poor... your'e getting fucked with.God help you if your car has rims or other custom features, it will be stolen under color of law.Can't believe the local idiot lawyers or media whores haven't video taped these clown shows for further study. Clowns making over a hundred DUI arrests a year, pure fiction, as it always has been. But I guess the time and a half is nice for the special bosses and insider POs as they violate everyones rights.

First off, this story is paraphrased. didnt go down exactly how it is written, if at all. some details have been left out. anyway, who gives a shit? i certainly dont. go to summerfest in milwaukee. it kicks ass. no shitbags cause it 15 bucks to get in.

. I believe the problem arose when the driver was searched. Why did the P.O. go in his pockets? OTOH, could the P.O. (based on his experience, etc.) identify the dope by mearly touching the outside of the offender's clothing?

It funny that I had a watch commander(Lt with black frame glasses from 011 maybe three years ago) tell me that this was completely illegal. He then asked me who signed this report(it was a transport), when I responded he said that particular W/C was a very dear friend and that he will approve this transport but only after warning me to watch myself because I don't want to get sued. Then they had the acting desk Sgt PO(1st watch turd white boy with 3 YOJ) who refused to believe that PCP has distinctive order that could be detected by the human nose. This asshole works in 011 and doesn't even know what PCP smells like, and he's the acting desk Sgt!!! W T F

The Terry stop only allows a pat down of the outer garments for weapons. Terry does not allow a search of pockets for illegal drugs. Also, to do a pat down you have to have articulable reasons for believing the suspect has a weapon. Traffic Stops 101.

Anonymous said...I beg to defer on the PC issue. The PC was that this individual was operating a motor vehicle in the public way. Check your caselaw, its perfectly acceptable in court as the basis for a stop. Was the driver able to produce a D/L, if so he should have been released if no citations w/o either a search of his person or auto. I believe the problem arose when the driver was searched. Why did the P.O. go in his pockets? OTOH, could the P.O. (based on his experience, etc.) identify the dope by mearly touching the outside of the offender's clothing? Had I been Wedster, I would have taken this officer off to the side and explained the facts of life to him, i.e., the boss is always right speech. The fact that the P.O. even questioned her under these circumstances should resulting in him being assigned to sit in the lobby of Roseland Hospital for the next 6 months or so. . . Shame

Read the story one more time and this time try to comprehend the basis of it. Next go eff yourself for your inane retort. We are not the gray area police anymore. Haven't been since 2005. Thanks.6/28/2009 01:16:00 AM

I beg to defer on the PC issue. The PC was that this individual was operating a motor vehicle in the public way. Check your caselaw, its perfectly acceptable in court as the basis for a stop. Was the driver able to produce a D/L, if so he should have been released if no citations w/o either a search of his person or auto. I believe the problem arose when the driver was searched. Why did the P.O. go in his pockets? OTOH, could the P.O. (based on his experience, etc.) identify the dope by mearly touching the outside of the offender's clothing? Had I been Wedster, I would have taken this officer off to the side and explained the facts of life to him, i.e., the boss is always right speech. The fact that the P.O. even questioned her under these circumstances should resulting in him being assigned to sit in the lobby of Roseland Hospital for the next 6 months or so. . . Shame

6/28/2009 01:16:00 AM

Are you the police?? Try using that argument for probable cause; "Offender was driving the vehicle on the public way. A/O could feel a small item in his pocket believed to be a crushed green leafy substance suspect Cannabis." NOT in a million years. Oh Lord, even if this made it past the desk sgt. and somehow past the w/c I could just hear the the attorney's picking you apart on the stand. " So officer, you pulled my client over because he was driving his car, legally, on a legal roadway??? What traffic violation did you cite him for?? Did his car match a description for a wanted vehicle? Did you observe him commit a crime prior to getting into his car? Did you observe him commit a crime while inside of his car? Hmmmmm, I didn't think so. Your honor, we would like $100 million dollars and the officer to lose his job and go to jail. Thankyou. "

Typical! Bosses have been doing shit like this to us for years. Just ask the many P.O.'s who were fired or did heavy time at call back. The want us to do something that they would not do just to get their numbers. The bosses have full deniability and consider it just collateral damage if we get hurt killed or fired. And they wonder why we don't trust them.

Always base a stop on IVC violations. Never on looks or suspicions. They teach that basic principle in the academy. There is always a IVC violation. I cannot understand why there was a problem? My question was if this team patrols the streets together all night? What is the mission? The primary mission? 10 officers, a sgt and two exempts doing what?

I FULLY agree on "don't make stops unless you're doing the paper," HOWEVER- Don't tell me there's no PC. I'm no genius or rocket scientist, but I can find pc in just about anything. All it takes is reading your IVC book a little. There's pc on almost every car on the street. Get creative, people.

Who has time to do vehicle stops when your going from job to job.In a back log. Sorry squad cant go to that job unavoidable traffic stop.ok? If it dont turn into anything take these next 3 jobs, they're on your box. Wtf!

Anonymous said... Always base a stop on IVC violations. Never on looks or suspicions. They teach that basic principle in the academy. There is always a IVC violation. I cannot understand why there was a problem? My question was if this team patrols the streets together all night? What is the mission? The primary mission? 10 officers, a sgt and two exempts doing what?

6/28/2009 04:58:00 PM

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

They were doing a seat belt mission.

Can you not read.

3 teams, 3 days a week out of the academy doing seat belt missions and impounds.

Always base a stop on IVC violations. Never on looks or suspicions. They teach that basic principle in the academy. There is always a IVC violation. I cannot understand why there was a problem?

Your a fucking idiot. Shove that bullshit up your ass.

Your going to say you curbed a car involved in a crime because his windshield cracked? What if there is no IVC violation, do you just let him go? Don't talk if your this stupid. Yes I'm making the call. You are too stupid to speak or write in a public forum. Next time the hamster wheel starts spinning fast just refrain from sharing it with general public and discuss it amongst your fellow operation day camp operatives.

1:16 AM You better check you case law. Operating a vehicle on a public way is only PC for the stop if a violation is noted or there is another reason for the stop like a DUI check point. You can't just stop people. Next, even if the person was just issued a ticket, there is no probable casue to do a search of the person or vehicle unless an arrest was made. Not being there is is hard to know what happended. Maybe a good stop and no license, so an arrest situation. the troubling part is that Wedster and Brust didn't know what to do and didn't take charge of the situation. BUT YOU CAN"T JUST STOP SOMEONE FOR DRIVING WITHOUT A REASON.

6/28/2009 10:23:00 AM

Your wrong asshole hang up the star now before you get yourself or somebody else killed. You DO NOT have to arrest somebody to search the vehicle or occupants. I hope you haven't wasted to much time on the job letting dirty assholes go because your an idiot. If you want to argue go ahead Im not responding, if you want to continue being a fucking retard go ahead. To all others ask somebody who is just a respectable copper and they will tell you the same. Don't believe them? Use a law book or call an ASA who is not a retard or at least first chair.

That's been her entire career... kissing ass to avoid dealing with the savages, and she's training our recruits? God help us!

I swear that one time when she was wc in 005 and jfed came to visit, she stayed about an hour and a half late and when he walked in she was 10 inches up his a**! It was pretty funny watching that ass kissing!!

I hate the bosses on this job as much as anyone, but I'll be damed if I am going to let some gangbanger POS go just because a boss is too ignorant to articulate why he stopped him in the first place. If the boss can't figure out the Probable Cause, then I will do it for him.

I'm done going out of my way to stop anyone, but I sure as hell am not going to let guilty criminals go if I do stop them.

I may have adjusted how I do my job, but I'm still a cop.

6/28/2009 11:22:00 AM

Thank god we have officers like you to do the work. The arrest and seizure of a bag of weed will impact crime on the street. Two hours in the station on paperwork and case tossed in court. Hey, wait a minute? That is a good idea. Arrest everyone for possessing small amounts of weed and hide in the station. Gosh, what an idea. thanks office.

but I'll be damed if I am going to let some gangbanger POS go just because a boss is too ignorant to articulate why he stopped him in the first place. If the boss can't figure out the Probable Cause, then I will do it for him.____

You are an IDIOT. Do us a favor and just quit. If you really police like this today, you will only end up in federal court making the rest of us look bad

that's what happens when the political police try to play the Real Police. They made the stop, they should have did the search, did the Arrest, and went to court. But instead they tried to put the assist people in the trick bag, and it sounds like a probable convicted felon on probation was caught with narcotics, and then let loose. How many clowns can pile out of the CPD Clown-Car of incompetent bosses this week?

I don't like the looks of about 1/3rd or more of the drivers I see driving around Shitcago every day. Does this mean I can now stop them? This is the Commander of our Police Academy's mentality? Oh God...What dim-wits...

This case does not affect all the other exceptions to a vehicle search: Vehicle inventory, search based on probable cause, exigent circumstances, plain view, abandoned property, stop and frisk, and consent.

SCC, first of all, I agree that this is a clusterfuck of a situation. Secondly, hats off to the officer who had the good sense to tell these bosses that he wasn't going to arrest this mope. Third, you lost me when you raised the question of Arizona v. Gant. The Gant decision covers the search of a vehicle incident to arrest. In this case, it sounds like the weed was found on the driver after he was taken out of the vehicle and searched. There is no mention of a vehicle search. Please correct me if I missed something or there is more to this story.Never the less, sounds like the CPD bosses need to go through search and seizure 101 again.

Thank god we have officers like you to do the work. The arrest and seizure of a bag of weed will impact crime on the street. Two hours in the station on paperwork and case tossed in court. Hey, wait a minute? That is a good idea. Arrest everyone for possessing small amounts of weed and hide in the station. Gosh, what an idea. thanks office.

Anonymous said... Always base a stop on IVC violations. Never on looks or suspicions. They teach that basic principle in the academy. There is always a IVC violation. I cannot understand why there was a problem?

Your a fucking idiot. Shove that bullshit up your ass.

Your going to say you curbed a car involved in a crime because his windshield cracked? What if there is no IVC violation, do you just let him go? Don't talk if your this stupid. Yes I'm making the call. You are too stupid to speak or write in a public forum. Next time the hamster wheel starts spinning fast just refrain from sharing it with general public and discuss it amongst your fellow operation day camp operatives.

6/28/2009 06:30:00 PM

Do not knock hampsters. If the driver did not commit a crime or did not commit a IVC violation, what is the reason for the stop? Do you stop for looks, suspicion? The driver did not commit a violation or crime, so why did you search him? Do you search every driver you stop? Officers like you are the reason why lawyers sue us and win.

'That's been her entire career... kissing ass to avoid dealing with the savages, and she's training our recruits? God help us!

I swear that one time when she was wc in 005 and jfed came to visit, she stayed about an hour and a half late and when he walked in she was 10 inches up his a**! It was pretty funny watching that ass kissing!!'

Well, it paid off. Between kissing WEISel's ass and holding her special fund raising parties for Ald. Rugai, Ruthie has garnered herself a coveted Gold star. And she didn't have to get it while holding down one of those stressful "DISTRICT Cmdr" jobs either! She's the boss (well, one of two) who manage a bldg. that is barely occupied, and isn't likely to be for years to come. I don't know about you, but I'd say that Ruthie has shown what good, strategic political ass kissing can do, if it's done right!

**Last Legit Traffic Gal said, "Clowns making over a hundred DUI arrests a year, pure fiction, as it always has been."

Are you saying you can't make over a hundred DUI arrests a year. Hey dummy, if you are a real traffic cop come on over to 010 and 011 and you can get over a hundred in two months time. My old partner was a Naperville DUI cop and works here now. He said you could seriously set a national DUI record EASY! He said DUI's (including DUI from weed) are virgin territory. It's like when the settlers went west and saw all those buffalo just standing there.

dont belive that fairy tale story for a second. i was there and dude was arrested. sounds like a wedster hater from 005 tyin to start some shit. dude was blastin his music and it was a sound impound. pat down revealed two bags on him. at least someone is making some stops out there.. i work in 005 and ive got to say, no one doing anything anymore.. pathetic. your not police officers anymore so dont try and pretend to be one or call yourselves one.. you drive around and waste everyones time

I still dont get why an ADS and Commander are assigned to an academy with 45 recruits. Brust is an idiot wannabe and certainly a bad judge of character and quality if he is riding around with Wedster. Wedster is a treacherous merit hack who will go to any lengths to get ahead. Birds of a feather..The so-called leadership on this Dept. is disgusting..Pompous, inept, downright foolish.

Why in the fuck are these mofos, a so called deputy, a commander, and fucking 4-6 p.o.'s out here bullshitting and we got p.o.'s getting killed in 7, cause of no damn manpower. You wanna make some traffic stops bring your ass to 7!!!

Did Wedster have her blond side kick SS with her who was a district sec in 022 her whole career until Ruthie took her to the academy with her? Talk about the blind leading the blind!!!!

6/28/2009 02:27:00 AMAll SS knew was how to kiss ass and drink with Ruth. The last good secretary in 22 was the oldtimer PH who retired.

6/28/2009 08:24:00 AM

The only person who thoughT PH was a good secretary was PH. Phil was a great guy but dumb as a box of rocks. If somebody is complaining about 19th Ward hacks, PH wrote the book about ass kissing in the ward office. Just ask his wife who they made the Crossing Guard coordinator.

'I still dont get why an ADS and Commander are assigned to an academy with 45 recruits. Brust is an idiot wannabe and certainly a bad judge of character and quality if he is riding around with Wedster. Wedster is a treacherous merit hack who will go to any lengths to get ahead. Birds of a feather..The so-called leadership on this Dept. is disgusting..Pompous, inept, downright foolish.'

"If there's not enough work (i.e.RECRUITS) to keep the new cmdr occupied at the Academy, why we'll just go out and FIND some work in the field for her to do! Between the new training videos we've placed her in and the new field work we have her doing, we'll JUSTIFY her existence, by God!"

Do not knock hampsters. If the driver did not commit a crime or did not commit a IVC violation, what is the reason for the stop? Do you stop for looks, suspicion? The driver did not commit a violation or crime, so why did you search him? Do you search every driver you stop? Officers like you are the reason why lawyers sue us and win.

6/29/2009 08:04:00 AM

Reading is a skill asshole. Until you can master basic comprehension please shut the fuck up. While your at it brush up on your laws too, maybe you could avoid getting punked out by dude everyday.

Anonymous said... dont belive that fairy tale story for a second. i was there and dude was arrested. sounds like a wedster hater from 005 tyin to start some shit. dude was blastin his music and it was a sound impound. pat down revealed two bags on him. at least someone is making some stops out there.. i work in 005 and ive got to say, no one doing anything anymore.. pathetic. your not police officers anymore so dont try and pretend to be one or call yourselves one.. you drive around and waste everyones time6/29/2009 05:18:00 PM

Reading is a skill asshole. Until you can master basic comprehension please shut the fuck up. While your at it brush up on your laws too, maybe you could avoid getting punked out by dude everyday.

6/30/2009 01:24:00 AM

Punked out or sued in federal court for civil rights violation? I have it all wrong. No need for reasonable suspicion. Just stop the car, search and make paper. Do not worry, the white shirts have our back. Ignore the CR numbers and beefs. I prefer to be punked out and stay safe.

I was one of the caravan of squad cars following pappa duck. However, there was some misinformation as to exactly what happened. Everything you said was accurate about no PC, but the weed was visible on the drivers seat. In a haste to get out of the car, the driver must have left it. He was observed by wedster go inside the house before she got out of her car. She then attempted to get the driver out of the house with no results. She then called a 5th district car to tow said vehicle.

Punked out or sued in federal court for civil rights violation? I have it all wrong. No need for reasonable suspicion. Just stop the car, search and make paper. Do not worry, the white shirts have our back. Ignore the CR numbers and beefs. I prefer to be punked out and stay safe.

6/30/2009 07:24:00 AM

Guy can you read? Obviously not, so you should not engage in any police action besides drinking free coffee. Are you really this stupid?

You do not have to observe an IVC violation to stop a car as you stated earlier and continue to falsely believe. That is why I told you to open up a law book so you can avoid being made a fool by dude. If you choose not to open up a law book and wish to continue being the butt of jokes and totally disrespected every where you go, be my guest. This little exchange between us has nothing to do with the above story/rumor. You stated that all vehicle stops must be based on IVC violations and your wrong. You don't know how to do your job and you shouldn't be giving advice to anyone about being the Police. I never said anything about not having reasonable suspicion as you claim. Which leads to believe that you can't read and recently discovered the term because if you knew what that was in the first place this conversation would not be happening. And by the way being punk out is not being safe. Allowing dude to have a gun underneath his seat during a traffic stop is not safe. Allowing dude to have a gun on his waistband during anywhere near you is not safe. So the bottom line is being afraid to do your job and not knowing what your doing is not safe. Do everyone a favor and stay in the car and avoid all contact with people because you are not safe.

WTF...is everyone on this site from the north or southwest side?? Wedster has run both tact and gun teams here on the southeast side. She has taken more guns and shitheads off the streets then the tickets that most of you spend your time writing.I think she knows pc when she sees it and if you ever took the time to get your heads out of your ass you would know some that.

Anonymous said... WTF...is everyone on this site from the north or southwest side?? Wedster has run both tact and gun teams here on the southeast side. She has taken more guns and shitheads off the streets then the tickets that most of you spend your time writing.I think she knows pc when she sees it and if you ever took the time to get your heads out of your ass you would know some that.7/02/2009 04:26:00 PM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Sophie, STFU and go back to milking the medical.

Sorry, I'm retired and it's not that important for me to call someone and have them look it up. I know just a few short yrs ago she was NOT the sec in 022. It's not some fucking state secret. Sophie was pretty much an idiot then and(judging from the comments)remains so to this day. I just can't believe she's with a commander. Excuse me.

Anonymous said... WTF...is everyone on this site from the north or southwest side?? Wedster has run both tact and gun teams here on the southeast side. She has taken more guns and shitheads off the streets then the tickets that most of you spend your time writing.I think she knows pc when she sees it and if you ever took the time to get your heads out of your ass you would know some that.7/02/2009 04:26:00 PM^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Sophie, STFU and go back to milking the medical**************************If by Sophie you mean the sec from 022 I take it you are one of the big scarey police who patrol the mean streets of Beverly looking for cerfew violators. Fckn absolute morans telling the real police about pc...pricelee. Go turn in another cop for abusing the med and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

That's right....I can't spell and you can't do police work, it all evens out. Then again I wrapped up a murder investigation last night and had a few drinks after....do you go out and have a few after locking up the 15 year old prep school kids out too late?? Get on it you big bad curfew cop...go rat out some more cops.

I would love to discuss this face to face with you. After you are done patroling the mean streets of Beverly Monday night meet me at TR's for a drink. I will let you tell me exactly what you think of my detective skills and I will tell you what I think of coppers who rat on their brothers/yes or sisters. By the way...I have a longstanding partner who I won't be bringing. It only takes one good eastside homicide dick to take on the shitload of 022 beatcops you will be bringing along for backup. Now check my spelling and change your diapers...I think you just pissed your pants.